Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (53 users) | |
|
| ondik Czech Republic. May 10 2011 18:02. Posts 2858 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2011 14:52 angra86 wrote:
Wow, that is beyond fucked up. I don't care what you've done, no one deserves that. Was anyone arrested for this? I'm pretty sure something like this is in violation of the eighth amendment?
So if he killed your father and mother while robbing into your house, what would you think he deserved? 10 years in comfortable room with daily access to TV and internet as happens in most cases?
|
| | Bisu. The one and only. // Save the cheerreaver, save the world (of SC2) |
|
|
| cYaN Norway. May 10 2011 18:03. Posts 3259 | Profile # |
This makes me wanna go back and read that crazy fucker Foucault's books again^^
Anyways, it's torture, plain and simple. If you believe that torturing murderers is right, that you should have little problem with this. I don't believe it's right and find it highly counterproductive.Last edit: 2011-05-10 18:04:00 |
|
|
| Nysze United States. May 10 2011 18:13. Posts 111 | Profile # |
On May 10 2011 18:02 ondik wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 14:52 angra86 wrote:
Wow, that is beyond fucked up. I don't care what you've done, no one deserves that. Was anyone arrested for this? I'm pretty sure something like this is in violation of the eighth amendment?
So if he killed your father and mother while robbing into your house, what would you think he deserved? 10 years in comfortable room with daily access to TV and internet as happens in most cases?
I do not believe anyone in this thread is advocating the release of this man in 10 years, or any amount of years (assuming he is guilty of all charges). If someone were to rob my house and murder my parents I would want that man locked up for life, but it would not bring me any joy or comfort to know that he is being tortured.Last edit: 2011-05-10 18:14:06 |
| |
|
| sigma_x Australia. May 10 2011 18:26. Posts 274 | Profile # |
On May 10 2011 18:00 vyyye wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 17:54 sigma_x wrote:
No, my ethical foundations are not purely based on the action of others. I find it, however, deeply offensive to the human condition to place more empathy/emphasis on the murderer than the victim (or the victim's family and friends). After all, the purpose of imprisonment is a mixture of retributive, rehabilitative and deterrence elements. Different people have different world views on which of those elements weigh most heavily.
They are completely separate scenarios. His current treatment is not bringing anyone back, and the only joy it can bring people affected is if they take joy in his pains. There isn't "more sympathy on the murderer than the victim". No one is, as far as I am aware, sympathizing with the murders. The problem is the fucking treatment of prisoners. Who, last time I checked, are also human beings. No action can change that.
A person's life cannot be discarded so easily by reference to their death. That person lives on, in the memories of those who love him, but also in the very fibre of civilisation which places primacy on the life of their citizens. By arguing that a murderer deserves better conditions, only because he is placed in solitary confinement, is to place so much undue empathy/emphasis on the murderer that it offends the idea of civilisation itself. |
|
|
| vyyye Sweden. May 10 2011 18:32. Posts 3905 | Profile # |
On May 10 2011 18:26 sigma_x wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 18:00 vyyye wrote:
On May 10 2011 17:54 sigma_x wrote:
No, my ethical foundations are not purely based on the action of others. I find it, however, deeply offensive to the human condition to place more empathy/emphasis on the murderer than the victim (or the victim's family and friends). After all, the purpose of imprisonment is a mixture of retributive, rehabilitative and deterrence elements. Different people have different world views on which of those elements weigh most heavily.
They are completely separate scenarios. His current treatment is not bringing anyone back, and the only joy it can bring people affected is if they take joy in his pains. There isn't "more sympathy on the murderer than the victim". No one is, as far as I am aware, sympathizing with the murders. The problem is the fucking treatment of prisoners. Who, last time I checked, are also human beings. No action can change that.
A person's life cannot be discarded so easily by reference to their death. That person lives on, in the memories of those who love him, but also in the very fibre of civilisation which places primacy on the life of their citizens. By arguing that a murderer deserves better conditions, only because he is placed in solitary confinement, is to place so much undue empathy/emphasis on the murderer that it offends the idea of civilisation itself.
You're going to have to elaborate on that, rather than jumping from one conclusion to the next. If you're going to imply anyone is "offending the idea of civilization itself" the bloody idea of civilization has to be clear, because I fail to see how not condoning torture offends any idea of civilization. Placing primacy on life and worsening the conditions of those who don't aren't the same thing.Last edit: 2011-05-10 18:34:24 |
|
|
| drop271 New Zealand. May 10 2011 18:39. Posts 277 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2011 18:26 sigma_x wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 18:00 vyyye wrote:
On May 10 2011 17:54 sigma_x wrote:
No, my ethical foundations are not purely based on the action of others. I find it, however, deeply offensive to the human condition to place more empathy/emphasis on the murderer than the victim (or the victim's family and friends). After all, the purpose of imprisonment is a mixture of retributive, rehabilitative and deterrence elements. Different people have different world views on which of those elements weigh most heavily.
They are completely separate scenarios. His current treatment is not bringing anyone back, and the only joy it can bring people affected is if they take joy in his pains. There isn't "more sympathy on the murderer than the victim". No one is, as far as I am aware, sympathizing with the murders. The problem is the fucking treatment of prisoners. Who, last time I checked, are also human beings. No action can change that.
A person's life cannot be discarded so easily by reference to their death. That person lives on, in the memories of those who love him, but also in the very fibre of civilisation which places primacy on the life of their citizens. By arguing that a murderer deserves better conditions, only because he is placed in solitary confinement, is to place so much undue empathy/emphasis on the murderer that it offends the idea of civilisation itself.
Sadly, if the victim is so concerned about the welfare of the perpetrator then it is them that is imprisoned. Nothing will ever atone for it. All that treating him like an animal does is turn us into animals too |
|
|
| sigma_x Australia. May 10 2011 18:57. Posts 274 | Profile # |
| Sure, I will elaborate as long as it remains an argument on the issues. Put another way, when a person is murdered in cold blood, the murderer takes not just the life of that person but the security that civilisation is supposed to afford. To defend a murderer in the way that is being argued so unfairly shifts the balance to the murderer that it is offensive to the victim and what the victim represents. After all, the murderer is not suffering waterboarding, beatings, electric shocks, or for that matter, arbitrary detention. |
|
|
| drop271 New Zealand. May 10 2011 19:20. Posts 277 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2011 18:57 sigma_x wrote:
Sure, I will elaborate as long as it remains an argument on the issues. Put another way, when a person is murdered in cold blood, the murderer takes not just the life of that person but the security that civilisation is supposed to afford. To defend a murderer in the way that is being argued so unfairly shifts the balance to the murderer that it is offensive to the victim and what the victim represents. After all, the murderer is not suffering waterboarding, beatings, electric shocks, or for that matter, arbitrary detention.
Fair points, however - sleep deprivation as he claims, amongst other things that he is being subjected to are considered torture.
However, on your substantive point, I refer to my earlier point - prison should never be seen as a balance between the victim and criminal. Nothing could ever balance it, even the death penalty is unjust to the victim. Focusing on the 'right' to retribution of the victim is a path that can never lead to any solution. I don't want to generalise, but many people in this thread 'siding' with the guy are just saying that his torture serves NO purpose and demeans us all.
Most of all, I personally think it demeans the victim. To think that some amount of suffering could ever be 'justice' (partially or completely) for the death of their loved ones is horrific to me. Nothing could bring them back or make amends for the crime. Indeed, to perpetrate such acts on the criminal on the behalf of the deceased does a diservice to all they stood for as a moral human being.
The only answer, imo, for the victim is to try to move on, and forget about the criminal. Mistreating the criminal just takes you down to their levelLast edit: 2011-05-10 19:22:22 |
|
|
| Mootland Finland. May 10 2011 19:23. Posts 51 | Profile # |
On May 10 2011 18:57 sigma_x wrote:
Sure, I will elaborate as long as it remains an argument on the issues. Put another way, when a person is murdered in cold blood, the murderer takes not just the life of that person but the security that civilisation is supposed to afford. To defend a murderer in the way that is being argued so unfairly shifts the balance to the murderer that it is offensive to the victim and what the victim represents. After all, the murderer is not suffering waterboarding, beatings, electric shocks, or for that matter, arbitrary detention.
Yeah, he suffered a confined space without any hints of time or any stimulations for mind and body, a place where minutes felt like hours and hours like days, the years he spent there might have felt like a century for him, could your mind withstand something like this? Torture is not only about bringing pain and harm in a traditional way, breaking one's mind like this is nothing short of turture. |
|
|
| WArped United Kingdom. May 10 2011 19:31. Posts 4681 | Profile # |
| The victim would want nothing else but to put the person that murdered one of their family members out of their minds, and by subjecting the criminal to a life a torture with absolutely no privacy and barely little interactivity with an hour of sunlight a week is a sure way of prolonging your memory of that person. A quick death is what the victim wants for their benefit and by reading the whole document, I am sure that this is what the murderer would have wanted after all those years. |
|
|
| tjosan Sweden. May 10 2011 21:01. Posts 120 | Profile # |
| I honestly think it might be time for some armed overthrowing of the government that allows these atrocities. That's in your constitution along with the 8th amendment isnt it? |
|
|
 Chill Canada. May 11 2011 06:29. Posts 25255 | Profile Blog # |
| I wonder how accurate that is. I just went through the whole thing. It's easy to believe what he says, but it's also easy to imagine that being normal procedure or he exaggerating / leaving out details. One example I noticed is that he always made sure to say his art supplies were taken away, but he never says how he got better and better art supplies. |
| | http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=275302¤tpage=225#4490 | |
|
|
| Stacks Norway. May 11 2011 07:01. Posts 68 | Profile # |
I spent 27 hours in temporary confinement in a small white room, with no contact with the outside world once. Even tho i had magazines, and 2 meals accompanied with a "Heres ure meal" i had a really rought emotional breakdown from it. Shaky as hell afterwards. And this was mostly due to the lack of measurable time, wich really messed with me. After beeing interrogated and found not guilty and what not, it took me 3-4 days to get back to normal. Considered pressing charges against the police etc., but we all know how that goes, even tho they break international law. And yeh, this is Norway btw.
So, i really would consider this treatment torture, and strongly agree with the people saying that murderers deserve punishment and isolation or something, but torturing someone just for the torture is really messed up.
And one thing im pretty sure about, solitary confinement will never ever work as rehabilitation of any kind. |
| |
|
| DeepElemBlues United States. May 11 2011 07:57. Posts 3652 | Profile # |
As I said, generalizing is bad and it leads nowhere.
"Generalizing is useless" is what is a useless statement, actually. Stereotypes are the bad kind of generalization. Generalization itself is neither right nor wrong on its own, it depends on facts. You also undermined yourself by saying it's bad but then basically agreeing with my generalization. And then you generalize about the American penal system.
And one thing im pretty sure about, solitary confinement will never ever work as rehabilitation of any kind.
Solitary isn't used as rehabilitation, it's used for particularly violent prisoners (whether it was inside or outside of the prison) and as punishment for breaking rules.
22 years in solitary is not regular practice.
Yeah, he suffered a confined space without any hints of time or any stimulations for mind and body, a place where minutes felt like hours and hours like days, the years he spent there might have felt like a century for him, could your mind withstand something like this?
Sounds rather like being in a coffin. Like the three men he killed. Oh wait since they're dead they get the full effect instead of the poor approximation solitary confinement affords.
All that treating him like an animal does is turn us into animals too
How is putting a triple-murderer into solitary confinement treating him like an animal? We don't put bad animals in solitary, we euthanize them.
So, i really would consider this treatment torture,
You having trouble with 27 hours of solitary speaks more to your personal constitution than to whether or not it is torture, really.
Also, political elites in both America and Europe (and more prevalently among the general population on the Continent) is a sense of moral superiority that leads to them declaring X is immoral because they believe it to be and then imposing that view on everyone else regardless of whether they agree and regardless of whether it is true. You can see the latest example of it in the controversy over Osama bin Laden. You can see it also here again and again with the unsupported assertions that solitary confinement is "torture" just because certain people and organizations say so. It is "considered" torture. "Many" "consider" it that way. This is argumentum ad populum, or at best an appeal to authority when "human rights organizations" are mentioned (dubious authorities at that, although that is a controversy caused by politics as well).
They strenuously argue that their positions are not political because it undermines the moral authority of their positions, but that's all it is. It is a political dispute not a moral dispute. It is also a sign of how politics has thoroughly infected nearly every facet of life. Everything has a political angle.
Goes to show that the American "justice" system isn't about justice at all, it's just an overly bureaucratic version of revenge. I don't care if it had been Osama in that cell, a civilized nation doesn't fucking do that.
Just holding this up as an example.
The clear conclusion is that: Americans are (more) barbarous than Europeans and this is a travesty. Cannot the American penal system and by extension the American people see how uncivilized and inhumane it is? The man suffered an incredible amount, and that's not in contention, there's no way you don't suffer incredibly from 22 years in solitary.
But do you know why he was in there? Was it revenge? Punishment? Or could it have been because he had murdered 3 men while in jail and he was deemed too dangerous to be mixed with the general population?
In other words, was he put in solitary because he was too dangerous to other inmates and guards outside of solitary?
I'm not saying that was the whole reason, but I'm sure it was a big one. There seems to be an attitude here that this man is in solitary simply because Americans are vengeful people who enjoy inflicting pain. That's not the case. He wasn't in solitary for armed robbery. He obviously wasn't in solitary indefinitely after the first murder, or the second. It was only after he'd killed two other prisoners and then a prison guard that he was tossed in the hole and the key thrown away. That's a pretty extreme pattern of behavior, it's not like American prison wardens are randomly picking guys to throw into solitary.
The problem is the fucking treatment of prisoners. Who, last time I checked, are also human beings. No action can change that.
Not even themselves?
You are entitled to have social interaction just because you are a human, and that can never be taken away? Even if you deny social interaction to three other human beings?
The problem is that "more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim," isn't quite accurate, a better thing to say would be that you're more offended by the American government (not government in general) denying people their "humanity" figuratively than you are by those people denying others their humanity literally.
Of course, outside of the Scandinavia-Germany-UK triangle, most European countries have prisons and such that make the US look like a moral paragon in comparison even by the ridiculous standards of some people in this thread, they don't have much glass left in their house to break throwing stones at others. Last edit: 2011-05-11 08:19:48 |
| |
|
| drop271 New Zealand. May 11 2011 14:12. Posts 277 | Profile Blog # |
On May 11 2011 06:29 Chill wrote:
I wonder how accurate that is. I just went through the whole thing. It's easy to believe what he says, but it's also easy to imagine that being normal procedure or he exaggerating / leaving out details. One example I noticed is that he always made sure to say his art supplies were taken away, but he never says how he got better and better art supplies.
He also has a distinction between his '28 years of solitary' and '22 years of clean conduct'. The implication is that he did something out of order during those first 6 years, but he never says what.
Still, a horrible situation |
|
|
| drop271 New Zealand. May 11 2011 14:19. Posts 277 | Profile Blog # |
On May 11 2011 07:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The problem is that "more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim," isn't quite accurate, a better thing to say would be that you're more offended by the American government (not government in general) denying people their "humanity" figuratively than you are by those people denying others their humanity literally.
Statements like this, and others comparing the perpetrator and victim, are deliberately enforcing a comparision that isn't necessary or implied. Just because I am concerned for the welfare of the criminal doesn't mean you can assume I care more or less for the victim. I haven't made a statement about the victim at all. By comparing the two you are trying to lead to a conclusion where the outcomes for the victim and the outcomes for the criminal are not fair or 'balanced'. Imo, trying to achieve such balance is revenge, or eye for an eye justice. I think your argument is just dressing it up in different terms. I can be concerned for both individuals - the levels of concern are not in any way related.
On May 11 2011 07:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Of course, outside of the Scandinavia-Germany-UK triangle, most European countries have prisons and such that make the US look like a moral paragon in comparison even by the ridiculous standards of some people in this thread, they don't have much glass left in their house to break throwing stones at others.
I'm sure you realise that is an ad-hominem argument. The morality of an individual, or their background/society, doesn't prevent them from making valid arguments. Even still, that claim of 'most' is pretty incredible. Are you including Spain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Greece in that category? Might want to back that upLast edit: 2011-05-11 14:21:42 |
|
|
| Attica United States. May 11 2011 14:45. Posts 214 | Profile # |
| They don't even treat serial killers like this. It's pretty inhumane to do this to someone. Besides the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate the criminals so they can be put back into society. |
|
|
| wwer United States. May 11 2011 15:00. Posts 53 | Profile # |
On May 11 2011 14:45 Attica wrote:
They don't even treat serial killers like this. It's pretty inhumane to do this to someone. Besides the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate the criminals so they can be put back into society.
No it isn't, the purpose of prison is to punish criminals.
TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 227 > SUBCHAPTER D > Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment
"imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3582.html#a |
|
|
| sigma_x Australia. May 11 2011 19:47. Posts 274 | Profile # |
On May 10 2011 19:20 drop271 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 18:57 sigma_x wrote:
Sure, I will elaborate as long as it remains an argument on the issues. Put another way, when a person is murdered in cold blood, the murderer takes not just the life of that person but the security that civilisation is supposed to afford. To defend a murderer in the way that is being argued so unfairly shifts the balance to the murderer that it is offensive to the victim and what the victim represents. After all, the murderer is not suffering waterboarding, beatings, electric shocks, or for that matter, arbitrary detention.
Fair points, however - sleep deprivation as he claims, amongst other things that he is being subjected to are considered torture. However, on your substantive point, I refer to my earlier point - prison should never be seen as a balance between the victim and criminal. Nothing could ever balance it, even the death penalty is unjust to the victim. Focusing on the 'right' to retribution of the victim is a path that can never lead to any solution. I don't want to generalise, but many people in this thread 'siding' with the guy are just saying that his torture serves NO purpose and demeans us all. Most of all, I personally think it demeans the victim. To think that some amount of suffering could ever be 'justice' (partially or completely) for the death of their loved ones is horrific to me. Nothing could bring them back or make amends for the crime. Indeed, to perpetrate such acts on the criminal on the behalf of the deceased does a diservice to all they stood for as a moral human being. The only answer, imo, for the victim is to try to move on, and forget about the criminal. Mistreating the criminal just takes you down to their level
The short answer is this: my only point was that focusing on the suffering of the criminal without reference to the suffering of the victim is offensive.
The long answer is that I agree with you, but only to the extent that it is a moral and aspirational goal. The reality is that the justification for punishment has always included retributive/punitive elements, if for no other reason than to stop people taking things into their own hands. The extent of those punitive elements must necessarily be measured with respect to the harm done to the victim, but also the harm done to society. The counter-argument that it doesn't bring back the victim, or that what's done is done is negated for this reason. The victim is still very much 'alive' in the memories of those who loved him, and in the fabric of society which places primacy on life. |
|
|
| JesusOurSaviour Australia. May 11 2011 19:55. Posts 1141 | Profile Blog # |
On May 10 2011 18:02 ondik wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 14:52 angra86 wrote:
Wow, that is beyond fucked up. I don't care what you've done, no one deserves that. Was anyone arrested for this? I'm pretty sure something like this is in violation of the eighth amendment?
So if he killed your father and mother while robbing into your house, what would you think he deserved? 10 years in comfortable room with daily access to TV and internet as happens in most cases?
I would forgive him - life was not mine to live to start with, I guess my response to what the murderer did to me would be this:
1. I'd be filled with rage and fury, demanding justice and praying to God, demanding to him why this has happened to me. That why there is no justice.
2. I would then realise, that all the lives the murderer killed were given by God, and that we are simply sojourners in this world - There is a heavenly abode which we look forward to.
3. I would be consoled knowing that my Mum and Dad are with Jesus in Heaven, that God will demand justice of everyone on the Last Day.
4. I would pray for God to calm my heart down so that I may not sin in my anger. That I would forgive this man and tell him in person I have forgiven him.
you might think this sounds impossible - but this is how God would like us to live. Hard stuff, I don't know if I can do what I wrote above, but it will be on my mind to do so. |
| | Jesus: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Sea[Shield]: "I want to be a good father. I want to raise a family with a wife that's like a fox, kids that are like rabbits" |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
